ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-20l1-0463; FRL-] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUIfl4ARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San JoaquinValley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District (SJV(JAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)

. This revisionwas proposed in the Federal Register on June 30, 2011 and concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) andparticulate matter (PM) emissions from commercial charbroilers. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on [Insert date 30 days from the date ofpublication in the Federal Register]. ADDRESSES: EPAhas established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2Oll0463 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some informationmay bepublicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrightedmaterial, large maps, multi-volume2 reports), and somemaynotbe available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect thehard copymaterials, please schedule an appointment duringnormal business hours with the contact listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section. FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT: DavidGrounds, EPARegion IX, (415) 972-3019, grounds.david@epa

.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. ProposedAction II. Public Comments andEPAResponses III. EPAAction IV. Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews I. ProposedAction OnJune 30, 2011 (76 FR 38340), EPAproposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.

Local Rule Rule Title Amended Submitted Agency # SJVUAPCD 4692 Commercial Charbroiling 09/17/2009 05/17/10 We proposedto approve this rulebecausewe determinedthat it compliedwith the relevant CAArequirements. Ourproposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses3 EPA’s proposed actionprovided a 30-daypublic corm-nent period. During this period, we received a comment from the followingparty. 1. SarahJackson, Earthjustice, letter datedAugust 1, 2011. The comments and our responses are summarizedbelow. Comment #1: Earthjustice asserts that EPAmust disapprove Rule 4692 for failure to satisfy CAArequirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT) andreasonably available control measures (RACM) because the rule does not require reasonable controls on under-fired charbrojlers (UFC). Response #1: For the reasons discussed in ourproposedrule (76 FR 38340) and furtherbelow, we disagree and continue to believe that Rule 4692 requires all control measures that are “reasonably available” for implementation in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV), Considering technical and economic feasibility. We respondmore specificallybelow to Earthjustjce’s assertions regarding the technical and economic feasibility ofUFC controls. Comment #2: Earthjustice asserts that reductions from this source categoryplayed a significant role in SJVUAPCD’S plan to reduce PM 25 levels in the SJV, but the current rule reduces emissions by only 0.02 tons/day

- less than 1% ofwhat was promised in SJVUAPCD’S 2008 PM 25plan. Response #2: As discussed in ourproposal, EPA evaluated Rule 4692 to determinewhether it complies with the4 enforceabilityrequirements of CAA section 110(a) andwhether EPA’s approval of it into the SIPwould satisfy the requirements concerning attainment andreasonable furtherprogress (RFP) in CAA section 110(1)

. Although this rule is not subject to the specific ozone RACT control requirement in CAA 182(b)(2) and (f),

we also evaluated the control requirements in the rule to determine whether it requires all measures that are “reasonably available” for implementation in the SJV, considering technical and economic feasibility. We didnot evaluate the emission reductions associatedwith this rule as such an evaluation belongs in the context ofEPA’s action on the State/District’s RACMdemonstration for the relevantNAAQS. For this reason, we didnotpropose to make a regulatory determinationwith respect to RACM in this rulemaking. Instead, we evaluated only the control requirements in the rule and consideredwhether additional controls for this particular source category are demonstrated to be technically and economically feasible for implementation in the area at this time. As stated in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for ourproposal, EPAwill take action in separate rulemakings on the State’s RACM demonstration for the relevant NAAQS based on an evaluation of the control

measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment dates in the SJV. SeeTechnical Support Document For EPA’s Direct Final Rulemaking For the5 California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4692, Commercial Charbroiling, EPA Region 9, June 9, 2011, page 4 (TSD). Comment #3: Earthjustjce contends that SJVrJAPCD’S May 2009 Rule 4692 staffreport states that UFC control is reasonably available and cost-effective at as little as $5,800 per ton PM reduced, and that SJVUAPCD subsequently abandoned UFC control based on inflated new cost information. Earthjustjce also asserts that the October 2009 staffreport does not include UFC emission reduction estimates needed to recalculate UFC control cost-effectiveness. Finally, Earthjustjce asserts that even using the new inflated cost information and the May 2009 emission estimates, UFC control is still more cost-effective than chaindriven charbroiler controls that SJVUAPCD and EPA are approving in Rule 4692 as reasonable. Response #3: The $5,800/ton estimate provided in SJVUAPCD’s May 2009 staffreport references a draft staffreport that relies on 2007 estimates from the BayArea Air QualityManagement District (BAAQMD).’ This was the low end of a range of estimates that BAAQMD had developed; the high end ofBAAQMD’s cost estimates were over $lOO,000/ton. See response to comment 5 below. In 2009, SJVUAPCD revised the low end of the range in the draft staffreport by increasing it to $ 22 ,300/ton, based on6 updated information including cost quotes fromvendors of control equipment SJVUAPCD’S revised Cost-effectiveness analysis still resulted in cost-perton estimates for UFC Controls within the range of estimates developedby BAAQMD and the South Coast Air QualityManagement District (SCAQMD). We believe these Cost estimates were performed following standard acceptedprocedures and the conuenter has notprovided specific information to demonstrate otherwise. Comment #4: Earthjustice comments that appendix

## c to SJVtJAPCD’S October 2009 staffreport assigns emission reductions of 0.453 tons per year (tpy) per restaurant to potential UFC controls but never explains the basis for this estimate or why it is used instead of BAAQJYID’s estimate, which is based on scientific studies. Earthjustjce asserts that 1.44 tons per day (tpd) (the median of the range provided in SJVUApVD’ 5 May 21, 2009 staff report) is a more appropriate estimate of emission reductions fromUFC controls. Response #4: In response to EPA’s inquiry regarding SJVUAPCD’S cost-effectiveness evaluation, the District provided additional information to explain the cost-effectiveness analyses in its August 2009 and SeptemiDer 2009 staffreports. 2 Specifically, SJVUAPCD identified the sources of its emission

‘Final Draft StaffReport for ProposedAmendments to Rule 4692,

SJVUAPCD, May 21, 2009, pages C-4 and C-S.7 factor data and explained the assumptions underlying its calculations of the incremental cost-effectiveness ofUFC controls. SJVUAPCDused information fromDun & Bradstreet on the number of restaurants operatingwithin SJV, togetherwith other reasonable assumptions about the numbers ofUFC units and the quantities and types ofmeats grilled at these restaurants, to develop a “composite” emission factor for the source category, whichprovided the basis for its estimate of 0.453 tpy in potential PM 25 reductions per restaurant from the use ofUFC controls. The SJVUAPCD notes that Earthjustice appears to have estimated PM 10 instead of PM 25 emissions, which increased the emissionreduction estimates, and to have reliedon less accurate estimates of the quantity ofmeat cooked and emission factors for various charbroiledmeats. Wehave reviewed the additional informationprovidedby SJVUAPCD and concurwith the District that additional UFC controls havenotbeen demonstrated to be “reasonably available” considering technical and economic feasibility in the SJV area at this time. Comment #5: Earthjustice comments that except for thewet scrubber, no explanation is given forwhy SJVUAPCD’s estimates forUFC control cost are muchhigher thanBAAQMD’s. Response #5: As explained in ourTSD, SJVtJAPCD’s cost estimates forUFC controls arewithin the range of cost estimates

2 Email from SandraLowe-Leseth (SJVtJAPCD) to David Grounds8 that other California districts have developed for similar controls. See TSD at 4. SJVUAPCD estimates that the cost ofUFC controls ranges from $22K

- $58K/ton PM 2

. 5 reduced, 3 BAAQMD estimates $17K

- $143K/tonVOC or PM, 4 and SCAQMD estimates $8K

- $34K/ton PM. 5 The cornmenterhas providedno specific information to indicate otherwise. Comment #6: Earthjustice comments that BAAQMD concluded that UFC control is cost-effective and adopted control requirements in 2007. Earthjustice also asserts that EPA’s claim that UFC controls are not reasonably availablebecause none have yet been certified to complywith BA?QMD’s rule “is absurd since... certification is not requireduntil the rule limits take effect in 2013.” Response #6: We explained in our TSD our reasons for concurring with SJVUAPCD’s conclusion that UFC control is not reasonably available for implementation within the SJV at this time. 6 These include SJVUAPCD’s cost-effectiveness analysis of UFC controls and concerns regarding the technical feasibility of UFC controls. We also noted that we are unaware of any other federal or state regulation or guidance suggesting UFC control is (EPA), September 22, 2011, with attachment. Final StaffReport forAmendments to Rule 4692, SJVUAPCD, October 8, 2009, pages 2 and C-6.

‘ StaffReport for Regulation 6, Rule 2, BAAQMD, November 2007,

page 26 (BAAQND StaffReport). Preliminary Draft StaffReport: ProposedAmendedRule 1138, SCAQMD, August 2009, Table 4.9 reasonably available for the commercial charbroiling industry except for BAAQM]J’s Regulation 6 Rule 2. We therefore disagree with Earthjustice’s suggestion that the absence of compliance certifications under the BAAQMD’s ruleprovided the onlybasis for our conclusion. As to BAAQNJJ’s rule, we noted thatmost facilities in the BayArea are too small to trigger the UFC control requirements ofRegulation 6 Rule 2 and that no facilities hadyet certified compliance with these limits. This information is relevant to our evaluation of technical feasibilitybecause, until the BAAQMD confirms that sources are complying with the UFC control requirements, wehave only limited information indicating that such controls are demonstrated to be technically feasible for the commercial charbroiling industry. It appears, however, that a large number of facilities (200) may be subject to BAAQMD’s UFC control requirement 7 andwill be required to certifyby 2013 whether they are complying with the UFC control requirements of that rule. We encourage the District to reevaluate Rule 4692 at the earliest opportunity, taking into account themost recent information about the technical and economic feasibility ofUFC controls, and to adopt all reasonably available control measures for commercial charbroiling that will expedite attainment of the PM 2

. 5 and ozone NAAQS in the SJV.

6 EPATSD, pages 4-5. BAAQMD StaffReport, page 18.10 Comment #7: Earthjustice asserts that actual controls have been installed in California andprovide empirical data on costs and emission reductions, and further claims that EPA and SJVUAPCD
are ignoring this data andrelying on conflicting information that lacks any reasonablebasis. Response #7: We do not dispute that UFC controls havebeen installed at facilities in California.8 As discussed in our responses above, however, SJVUAPCD explained thebasis for its assessment of the economic feasibility ofUFC controls in SJV, including the empirical dataunderlying these evaluations, andwe concurwith the District’s conclusionbased on these evaluations thatUFC control is not reasonably available in the SJV at this time.

III. EPA Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submittedrule complies with the relevant CAArequirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CleanAirAct, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with theprovisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40

8 See Final StaffReport forAmendments to Rule 4692, SJVUAPCD, October 8, 2009, pages 11-12.11 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve State choices, provided that theymeet the criteria of the CleanAirAct. Accordingly, this actionmerely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposedby State law. For that reason, this action: is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office ofManagement andBudget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collectionburden under the provisions of the PaperworkReductionAct (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfundedmandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the UnfundedMandates ReformAct of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• does not have Federalismimplications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999)

• is not an economically significant regulatory actionbased

onhealth or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);12

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements wouldbe inconsistent with the CleanAirAct; and

• does notprovide EPAwith the discretionary authority to address disproportionate humanhealth or environmental effects withpractical, appropriate, and legallypermissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) In addition, this rule does nothave tribal implications as specifiedby Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the Sfate, andEPAnotes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments orpreempt tribal law. The Congressional ReviewAct, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generallyprovides thatbefore a rulemay take effect, the agencypromulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to eachHouse of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPAwill submit a report containing this action and other required information to13 the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the ComptrollerGeneral of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. Amajor rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as definedby 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CleanAirAct, petitions for judicial review of this actionmust be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuitby [FEDERAL REGISTER OFFICE: insert date 60 days from date ofpublication of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing apetition for reconsiderationby the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for thepurposes ofjudicial reviewnor does it extend the time withinwhich apetition for judicial reviewmaybe filed, and shall notpostpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This actionmay notbe challenged later inproceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).14 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Incorporationby reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulatematter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

,,pdB1umenfd/2 onal Admi Region IX.